Jani 2025-03-16 08:20 a.m.To also mention, the Solicitor General’s Office (SGO) is not an investigative body, nor does it function as a fact-finding authority in legal disputes. Its role is strictly limited to providing legal representation to government officials in certain cases, based on internal policies, resource availability, and strategic priorities.
A refusal by the SGO to represent an individual does not imply any wrongdoing or liability. Such a decision is often based on workload constraints, administrative considerations, or policy guidelines, rather than any substantive review of the case's merits. It is not an investigative finding, nor does it carry any weight as evidence of misconduct.
Since the (DoJ) had offered their representation and then retracted it when I, the Defendant was told they are '' overloaded '' with cases. For you the Plaintiff to then argue with me how I am speculating in regards to what has been said to me is a baseless reach into the unknown. The statements are clear—there was no investigative determination, only an administrative decision regarding workload. Or do you wish to speculate any further?
Additionally, calling a Deputy Solicitor General who has only been on the job for a single day an "expert" would be an outrageous claim. Expertise is built on experience, legal acumen, and a proven track record, none of which can be reasonably attributed to someone with mere hours in the position.
For the plaintiff's counsel to believe that the Deputy Solicitor General would actually bring any meaningful insight into the 18-second video, wherein she was not present, is nothing more than a baseless reach. This is mere speculation, hoping it would somehow support the plaintiff’s case when, in reality, it adds no factual or evidentiary value.